Re: 2119bis

ietf

Re: 2119bis

2011-08-31 09:36:16

On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

On the other hand, given the current SHOULD definition in RFC2119, I'm at a 
loss to understand how one could reasonably come to other than the second 
interpretation you give here.  It's fairly explicit to me.


The simplest explanation is that people don't bother to read 2119.

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: 2119bis, (continued) Re: 2119bis, Eric Burger Re: 2119bis, hector Re: 2119bis, Eric Burger Re: 2119bis, Hector Re: 2119bis, Keith Moore Re: 2119bis, Hector Re: 2119bis, Keith Moore Re: 2119bis, hector Re: 2119bis, Keith Moore RE: 2119bis, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: 2119bis, Keith Moore <= Re: 2119bis, Adam Roach Re: 2119bis, Eric Burger Re: 2119bis, Mark Nottingham Re: 2119bis, Keith Moore Re: 2119bis, Marc Petit-Huguenin Re: 2119bis, John C Klensin Re: 2119bis, Eric Burger Re: 2119bis, Frank Ellermann Re: 2119bis, Eliot Lear Re: 2119bis, Mykyta Yevstifeyev

Previous by Date:	Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track, John C Klensin
Next by Date:	Re: Discuss criteria for documents that advance on the standards track, John C Klensin
Previous by Thread:	RE: 2119bis, Murray S. Kucherawy
Next by Thread:	Re: 2119bis, Adam Roach
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]